1. The part concerning the crime Nos. 1 and 4 in the judgment of the court below against the defendant and the part not guilty.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant

Since the defendant was not aware of the fact that the building permit was revoked at the time when he received money from the victim I on August 31, 2009 and the fact that there was an ownership problem of the site, as to the fraud of paragraph (1) of the crime in the judgment of the court below, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts.

The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged because the defendant had the intention or ability to pay the card price to the victim K as to the fraud of Paragraph 2 of the facts charged in the judgment of the court below, and therefore it is not possible to recognize the criminal intent of defraudation.

The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts, since the defendant has sufficient intent or ability to pay the construction cost to the victim D as to the fraud of the facts charged in the judgment of the court below.

원심 판시 범죄사실 제4항 사기의 점에 대하여 피고인은 2005. 11. 주식회사 S을 AG에게 양도한 후, 피해자 T를 주식회사 S의 대표인 AG에게 소개만시켜 준 것이므로 이 부분 샷시 공사 대금 채무를 부담하는 것은 AG 혹은 주식회사 S이다.

In addition, the defendant received a request from the injured party T of the victim to purchase AG so that U apartment 46-dong 501 (46-dong 401-dong 401-dong 401-dong 46-dong 401) can be provided as security, and only delivered AG's intent to provide double security for the above apartment.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous, although the defendant could not be seen as deceiving the victim T.